KWP Pelekane 5.2011 final report

Kohala Watershed Partnership’s
Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration Project
August 2009 - February 2011
Final Project Report
May 31, 2011
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary......................................................................................... 1
Project Overview and Objectives .................................................................... 1
Project Personnel ........................................................................................... 3
Restoration Corridor ...................................................................................... 3
Native Plant Propagation
Overall Planting Design
Irrigation
Outplanting
Existing Native Species
Critical Erosion Areas..................................................................................... 11
Sediment Check Dams
Bare Soil Treatments
Feral Ungulate Management ......................................................................... 14
Fencing
Feral Goat Control
Monitoring ................................................................................................... 17
Pelekane Bay Marine Study
Vegetation Surveys
GIS Assessment of Bare Soil Areas
Outreach Program ....................................................................................... 20
Volunteer Work Days
Community Presentations
Transportation ............................................................................................ 22
Ongoing & Future Work .............................................................................. 23
Appendices ................................................................................................. 24
Executive Summary
In August of 2009, Kohala Watershed Partnership (KWP) was the recipient of a $2.69M competitive
grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for coastal restoration
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This funded the Pelekane Bay
Watershed Restoration Project. With the requirement that the project be “shovel ready” and
completed in 18 months, an initial crew of 15 island residents were hired to address the sources and
the impacts of land-based sediment flowing into Pelekane Bay. The work encompassed 6600 acres
owned by Queen Emma Land Company and the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
Resources, all leased to Parker Ranch. The field work successfully concluded in February 2011.
Project Overview and Objectives
Pelekane Bay, on the west coast of Hawaiʻi Island, was once home to a
vibrant coral reef habitat, well known in traditional Hawaiian culture
as a breeding ground for reef fish and sharks, and a productive
fishing area. Continued erosion in the watershed and sediment
deposition in Pelekane Bay in the past few decades has led to
chronically impaired near-shore marine waters. Marine monitoring
managed by KWP in Pelekane Bay in the summer of 2010
demonstrated that live corals and associated reef invertebrates and
fish are nearly absent in areas with the most sediment. However, the
bay has a marked gradient of reef diversity and health that follows
the sediment gradient. Where there is more natural flushing of
sediment, the coral and other reef organisms are unhealthy, but have
survived. The conclusion of the marine research consortium was that
the coral reef in the bay has the capacity to recover if sediment inputs
are reduced.
Makeahua Stream carrying a large sediment
burden after a November 2010 storm event.
Sediment deposition at the mouth of
Makeahua Stream at Pelekane Bay.
Extensive areas of bare soil are apparent in this 2010
aerial image of the lower Pelekane Bay watershed.
Page 1
Hawaiian Islands
Kohala Mountain
Summit (5400 ft)
Hawaii
Island
Pelekane Bay
Watershed
Critical Erosion
Areas
Ri
p
ia
ar
nR
to
es
ra
t
Co
n
io
d
rri
or
Pelekane Bay
N
Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration Project
The implementation plan of activities for the Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration Project was guided
by suggestions made in the Pelekane Bay Watershed Management Plan, published by the Mauna Kea
Soil and Water Conservation District in 2005, to reduce sediment inputs into coastal waters. The
restoration plan followed three guiding objectives:
I) Maintain existing ground cover to prevent actively eroding areas from expanding. In order
to fulfill this objective we addressed the key threats to ground cover persistence: feral goat
populations and overgrazing. We eradicated feral goats on the watershed, and worked
with Parker Ranch to continue rotational grazing practices.
II) Restore native vegetation to critically eroding and strategically important areas of the
watershed. Native vegetation adapted to site conditions will rehabilitate the land, clean the
runoff, and provide habitat for native fauna. We created a 400-acre riparian exclosure in
which we protected more than 60,000 existing native shrubs and trees, and outplanted
Page 2
32,000 native ground covers and woody plants. Additionally, we seeded fabric that covered
more than 13 acres of bare ground with native grasses and forbs.
III) Reduce sediment transport and storage in drainage ways and to mitigate actively headcutting gullies. An innovative combination of structural and biological erosion control
measures was utilized in the most critical erosion areas, including the construction of
sediment check dams and deployment of erosion control fabric embedded with seeds of
native grasses and forbs.
Project Personnel
In order to implement our project objectives, we hired, trained and deployed two field crews (5-9
person Restoration Crew and 5-person Fencing Crew), a field/GIS technician, and an assistant for
administration and outreach. The KWP Coordinator, Melora Purell, and Field Operations Leader,
Brad Lau, were both funded at least 0.6 FTE for the duration of the project. We employed a total of 35
personnel for the project over the course of 18 months, including five Summer interns in 2010, and six
Fall 2011 interns who worked during the last five months of the project.
Only two field crew members had experience in conservation & restoration field work at the time of
hire. An important part of this project was to not only train our employees in basic techniques of
conservation fencing, weed management, native plant propagation and sediment control, but also to
orient them to the “big picture” objectives of restoration and conservation. At the time of hire, and
then again after a probationary period, we asked our crew to complete a self-assessment (Appendix
A) with regard to skills and knowledge needed for their jobs. Together with their supervisor, crew
members also set goals for future improvements in job skills and understanding. Through the use of
these assessment tools, our crew consistently documented the development of their knowledge of
native ecosystems and conservation methods, as well as improvement in job skills.
We also implemented a leadership training and assessment program for our crew leaders. We created
a rubric of leadership job performance characteristics, and asked our leaders to assess themselves
based on these criteria, including communication, planning, productivity and accountability
(Appendix B).
Restoration Corridor
The plan for the 400-acre restoration corridor included the protection and installation of 100,000
native plants. The area was chosen because the two streams that are enclosed, Waiakamali and
Luahine, provide the most drainage from the upper watershed. The restoration of native forest cover
in the riparian areas adjacent to these streams provides for decreased erosion and improved water
quality, as well as the eventual restoration of rainfall capture by a mature forest canopy.
Page 3
Native Plant Propagation
Over the course of the project, we collected seeds or cuttings of 32 native
plant species. From these, we successfully grew 28 species. The
Endangered plants were passed on to our colleagues at the State Tree
Nursery (STN). We eventually outplanted 22 species, of which 15 species
became our “core plants” due to the availability of their seeds, the
rapidness of their growth, the health of the seedlings, and the high
survival after outplanting. The chart below summarizes the species we
successfully grew:
Hawaiian
Name
Scientific Name
Core
Plant?
Notes
ʻAʻaliʻi
Dodonaea viscosa
Y
Easy to collect, germinate and grow.
ʻĀkia
Wikstroemia pulcherrima
Y
Variable fruit output. Few fruit in 2010.
Alaheʻe
Psydrax odorata
N
Very slow to germinate. No longer common
on Kohala.
ʻĀlaʻa
Pouteria sandwicensis
N
No longer common on Kohala.
ʻĀweoweo
Chenopodium oahuense
Y
Abundant seed, fast growing and hardy.
ʻĀwikiwiki
Canavalia hawaiiensis
N
Low success rate from cuttings.
Hala pepe
Pleomele hawaiiensis
N
* Endangered - passed on seed to STN.
Hōʻawa
Pittosporum hosmeri
Y
Easy to grow.
Huehue
Cocculus orbiculatus
N
Low success from cuttings. No fruit.
ʻIliahi
Santalum ellipticum x.
Santalum paniculatum
Y
Common tree on our watershed; abundant
flowers and fruit. Slow to germinate.
ʻIlima
Sida fallax
Y
Variable forms; abundant seeds.
Koiaʻa
Acacia koaia
Y
Low seed production in 2010.
Koali ʻawa
Ipomea indica
Y
Easy to grow from cuttings and seed.
Kuluʻī
Nototrichium sandwincense
Y
Abundant seed; easy to grow.
Lama
Diospyros sandwicensis
N
Very slow growing.
Page 4
Hawaiian
Name
Core
Plant?
Scientific Name
Notes
Māmaki
Pipturus albidus
N
Field conditions too dry for this species.
Māmane
Sophora crysophylla
Y
Abundant seed available, esp. Mauna Kea.
Maʻo hau hele
Hibiscus brachenridgei
N
*Endangered - passed on seed to STN.
Naio
Myoporum sandwicense
N
Culled plants due to naio thrips infestation.
Olopua
Nestigis sandwicensis
N
Slow to germinate and grow.
Pāʻū o Hiʻiaka
Jacquemontia ovalifolia
N
Easy to grow from cuttings.
Pili
Heteropogon contortus
Y
Common in lower watershed.
Pilo
Coprosma spp.
N
Field conditions too dry for outplanting.
Pōhinahina
Vitex rotundifolia
Y
Easy to grow from cuttings.
Pāpala kepau
Pisonia sandwicensis
N
Very hard to soak and grow sticky seeds.
Pua kala
Argemone glauca
Y
Easy to grow. Used seeds for direct sow.
‘Ūlei
Osteomeles anthyllidifolia
Y
Powdery mildew reduced viability.
Wiliwili
Erythrina sandwicensis
Y
Abundant seed. Easy to grow.
See Appendix C for further information and photos of the 15 “core” plants for the project, including
sow-to-outplant timing, collection amounts and locations, and pot sizes.
Native plant propagation for us was a learning process; we
relied heavily on the expertise of workers at the State Tree
Nursery, and experience within our staff. We did
experimental trials to find the best protocols for pot sizes,
planting medium, water regimens, etc.
Generally, our crew spent one day per week on plant
propagation, including the following activities: collecting
seeds, cleaning & weighing seeds, sowing seeds,
transplanting seedlings, weeding potted plants, cleaning &
sterilizing pots. Over the course of the project period, we
outplanted 32,000 plants, and have an additional 16,000 plants that are inventoried at the nursery,
ready for future planting. The total cost to produce those 48,000 plants can be calculated from the cost
Page 5
of a crew of 6 people for 8 hours a week, and the cost of pots and planting media. The average cost of
pay and benefits for a crew member was $20 per hour, for a total cost of $74,880 for personnel for
propagation for this project period. The cost of nursery supplies for the project was $11,800. The
overall cost per plant for propagation was $1.80. This does not include the costs associated with the
nursery facility or utilities, which were donated to the project as in-kind from the State DLNR.
Overall Design of Restoration Corridor
The overall goal of our outplanting was to utilize a diverse mix of hardy native species to revegetate
key drainages within the riparian corridors. We wanted to create a multi-level canopy which would
include trees, shrubs, and ground covers.
The topography and existing alien grass cover of the restoration corridor can be seen in the photo to
the left. Areas adjacent to the streams have clear pathways for run-off. By restoring vegetation into
these drainages (graphic on the right), we will restore some of the ecosystem services of the native
forest , including 1) change soil texture to allow for more infiltration and water storage, 2) reduce
overland flow and erosion, 3) increase biomass of the system, which stores more nutrients, and 4)
create shade and plant canopy which can catch fog drip, creating more humidity and water inputs to
the system.
Our Planting Out Design (POD) system had the intention to replicate the species diversity and
structure of a native mesic-dry forest to accomplish these ecosystem services. A “pod” became our
term for a self-contained planting area, with an associated sub-unit of the irrigation system. In our
original planting plan, we were going to distribute our pods in drainages across the entire 400 acre
exclosure. This original plan was dramatically changed as the drought worsened (see section below
for more details of the drought), and we were required to run irrigation to all of our plantings. It
became impossible to spread the pods evenly within the corridor, because the cost in personnel, time
and funds to purchase and install the irrigation across 400 acres was not feasible.
Page 6
Irrigation
The original plan for planting was based on the need for irrigation in just the lower, drier planting
areas. Irrigation for all of our plantings became a necessity due to the ongoing drought, the worst of
the past 100 years, which peaked at a “D4” level (“exceptional”) during the project period.
Supplemental funds became available from NOAA in early 2010, and were applied to the irrigation
infrastructure, as well as funding additional crew to install the system.
The original project budget included the construction of a 300,000 gallon reservoir high up on the
mountain, connected to an existing Parker Ranch reservoir. This was constructed in August 2010 by a
local contractor with assistance from our field crew. The photos below show the bulldozing of the site,
with the existing reservoir in the foreground (L) and the liner being stretched (R). This new reservoir
is filled from overflow from the old one, and connects to the existing Parker Ranch water system,
which feeds our tanks for plant irrigation.
Our irrigation system is gravity-fed, which poses special challenges. We keep track of elevation gain
along every pipeline, so that pressure build-up from gravity will not burst pipes (see photo below
right). We also install holding tanks along the elevation gradient, to relieve pressure along the
pipeline. Along each main branch of the system, we use pressure regulating valves (PRV). Each plant
gets its own drip line (see photo below left).
Page 7
Main Tank
2
Breaker
Tank
1 inc
h late
h
inc
lin
e
Pod
ral
Pod
Our system (see schematic at left) is fed off of our 30,000 gallon
main tank, situated at the top of the corridor next to Pu’u
Kawaiwai. From here, a 2 inch water line feeds most of the
system. Breaker tanks are positioned along the main water line.
One inch “laterals” branch off to each pod, which branch again
into 1/2 inch “pod runners”, from which 1/4 inch “spaghetti
lines” are connected to one gallon-per-hour drip emitters for
every plant. Typically, up to 250 plants can be irrigated from one
lateral, and up to 1200 plants can be planted in a pod. On-off
valves are located at the breaker tanks, so that multiple pods can
be efficiently watered at the same time.
Pod
Just after outplanting, our plants receive about one gallon of
water per week. After a few weeks, they are gradually weaned
off to about one gallon per month, depending on rainfall. We are
Pod
still within a deep drought, so every plant within the pods
continues to receive some irrigation. During a few wet times
since November 2010, we took the opportunity to plant in
drainages that are naturally wetter than their surroundings, and these plants have not required
irrigation. These plants are usually grown in dibble tubes, and because the soil is moist, it means that
we can plant with minimal soil disturbance using dibble sticks.
The map in Appendix D shows the distribution of the pods and irrigation in the upper 100 acres of the
restoration corridor. Only one pod is currently planted in the lower half of the corridor. Due to its
long distance from the irrigation infrastructure and overall drier conditions, the lower corridor was a
not a top priority for planting. However, a 2 inch feeder line was installed to the bottom of the
exclosure along with two breaker tanks, so as site conditions improve, we will have the structures in
place to facilitate planting in these drainages.
We spent a total of $71,400 on irrigation supplies, including tanks, pipes, emitters, plumbing fixtures,
and tubing. Considering that we installed 32,000 plants on this system, that was $2.25 per plant for
irrigation, not including the cost of the water itself, which was donated as in-kind from Parker Ranch.
This will not be the cost per plant for future projects however, because the infrastructure (tanks, main
lines, etc.) are already in place.
Some of the lessons learned from our irrigation work included: 1) don’t put too many plants on one
“lateral”, or some plants will not get watered because there is not enough pressure; 2) streamline
irrigation lines, with valves at the tanks to maximize crew time in turning on and off; 3) use the
largest possible pipe size for main lines. We originally had a one inch feed line from the main tank,
which did not provide enough volume to efficiently refill tanks and turn on multiple lines at the same
time. We replaced our one inch lines with 2 inch line to provide the needed volume and pressure.
Page 8
Outplanting
We followed our basic protocols of the Planting Out Design (POD or “pod”) described above, with a
few modifications. In order to maximize our space and irrigation, we ended up putting our plants
much closer together than originally planned. In the end, our system involves planting trees no less
than 8 feet apart, and shrubs and ground covers no less than 4 feet apart. Eventually, these woody
species may become crowded, but in the meantime, they will create enough shade to out-compete the
predominant alien grasses, and create a cooler and wetter micro-climate. This closer spacing also
ensures a continuous canopy despite some plants dying.
We started out digging holes with shovels, but we tried out a rented auger one day, and found that
despite the rocks, the auger made the work much faster and created a nice deep, fluffy hole in which
to plant. The soil at our site is generally dry, powdery and repels water, so if a drip emitter is placed
at the base of a plant around which the soil has not been disturbed, the water will usually run off and
not soak in. Using the auger to make planting holes was a huge step forward in creating the best
possible situation for our seedlings to survive with a minimal amount of water. The gallon of water
emitted per hour from each spaghetti tube soaks into the soil in the hole, providing sufficient water
for the plant for a longer period of time. We added no amendments to the soil when we planted.
Another key part of our planting protocol was preparation of the plant once it was removed from the
pot. We found that the root ball of many of our plants that eventually died had not grown beyond the
original shape of the pot. To encourage greater root growth and proper uptake of water, we massaged
and untangled the roots within the root ball, and stretched the roots down into the hole, and made as
much contact as possible between the plant’s roots and the native soil. Once we started taking the
time to do this root preparation, we noticed a much higher survival rate, especially from the plants
that had become root-bound in their pots.
Outplanting with volunteers on Earth Day, April 2010. At this point there was no soil moisture at all. Much of the
structure of the soil was changed, top soil was lost as grass roots were desiccated, and wind erosion took its toll.
Page 9
Our pods vary in size from 1/4 acre to over one acre. We outplanted a total of 22 species, with no less
than 5 species in a particular pod. The core plants in almost every pod included koaiʻa and ‘a’ali’i.
We started outplanting in December 2010, with one initial pod of about 1200 plants, without
irrigation. Because of the complete absence of precipitation, we spent the next month watering these
plants by hand (two days per week for the whole crew), until we set up our first temporary irrigation
system; this small 2000 gallon tank had to be refilled through multiple trips by a 400 gallon water
trailer. At that point, we had lost more than 60% of the plants in that pod, and learned just how
devastating a drought can be. We realized that we needed to invest in a complete irrigation system
for all our plantings. In March, 2010, we began planting with irrigation. Our schedule of planting for
the restoration crew for the next 12 months was about three days per week. Generally, it took our
crew of 6 people 10 days to plant one acre, including irrigation set up. We averaged 1900 plants per
acre. The overall cost of outplanting, including our crew salary and benefits ($20/hr) for their days of
planting and setting up irrigation, averaged $5.00 per plant.
During most of 2010, we were planting in
extremely dry conditions. We saw no
measurable rainfall on the watershed from
March through November 2010. The grass
was completely desiccated and was subject
to wind erosion. The photo to the left shows
our water tank near Pu’u Kawaiwai, and the
main pipeline in September 2010, when all
ground cover was essentially gone. The bare
brown spots are usually covered in grass
during this time of the year. From January
2010 for 10 months, Parker Ranch removed
their cattle from the pastures on this part of
the watershed due to lack of forage.
In the last three months of the project,
following some significant rainfall, we were able to plant in some wetter drainages near the top of the
corridor without irrigation. We used dibble sticks to plant species that could be grown in the small D6
dibble tubes. This did not involve site preparation or irrigation set up, so we put many more plants in
the ground. In areas that we planted with dibbles only and no irrigation, we were able to plant at a
rate of more than 1300 plants per day. The cost of planting under this scenario is about $0.75 per
plant.
To compare the two protocols for planting: with irrigation, total of $7.25 per plant; without irrigation,
$0.75 per plant, which is a fraction of the cost. This is why we were only able to outplant 32,000 plants
over the course of the project, when we had planned for closer to 100,000 plants. If we had had good
fortune with the weather, we would have been able to triple that number of plants.
Page 10
Existing native species
The 400-acre restoration corridor contains a large
population of remnant woody native plants (see
photo to the right) in the lower third of the
exclosure, across about 150 acres. To document their
survival and regeneration, we surveyed the area,
and documented the population of each species
within. The key remnant species in the area were
‘iliahi, ‘a’ali’i , ‘akia, ‘uhaloa, pili, and ilima. The
reduction in browsing pressure and trampling that
accompanied the completion of the exclosure fence
has resulted in surge of growth from these plants, as
well as recruitment from the seed bank. Based on
the surveys, we have estimated more than 60,000
native plants in this area.
Critical Erosion Areas
The lower section of the Pelekane Bay watershed contains many areas of
bare soil caused by fires, overgrazing by feral goats, and ongoing drought.
Head-cutting gullies, like the one shown on the right, are created during
rare but intense storm events. Because the soil is powdery, dry, and
resistant to water infiltration, during a storm the overland flow of water
concentrates into these low areas, and the resulting erosion creates these
gullies. We addressed the gullies and erosion in two ways: 1) by treating
the bare ground in these drainages with erosion control fabrics embedded
with seeds of native drought-tolerant plants, and 2) through construction
of sediment check dams to collect and sequester sediment being moved in
these gullies during storm events. Our restoration crew spent an average
of one day a week in the critical erosion areas over the course of the project.
Sediment Check Dams
Head-cutting gullies are spread throughout the lower watershed, so we focused on the most
accessible areas that had the greatest amount of bare soil in the drainages. We constructed dams
within these gullies, using native rocks in the area. Dams were situated just downslope from a flat
area, so that we would slow the water and allow the sediment to settle and collect behind the dam as
the water pooled.
Page 11
The dam-building process required clearing the
dam site by moving rocks and debris from the
area. Wire mesh was laid down first, then
ground cloth. The rocks are set on top of the
fabric.
The cloth and wire mesh is then wrapped
around the rocks and secured. We built 93 dams
of varying sizes by the end of the project. Our
largest dams required a combined crew of 12 or
more people multiple days, but a few smaller
dams could be accomplished in one day with a
small crew.
Our dams proved to be very effective at
sequestering sediment. The dam being
constructed in the photo experienced a storm
event with major erosion in March 2010. The
dam was filled to the top with sediment, as seen
in the photo below. In order to maintain the
effectiveness of our dams over time, the
sediment needs to be removed from the dam
and sequestered in a way that it will no longer
be mobile during a storm.
Page 12
We emptied the dams that filled in this March
storm. Some of the dams were emptied by
hand, by loading buckets with sediment and
carrying them out of the drainage. We
estimated the amount of sediment by
weighing one bucket, then counting the total
number of buckets moved. The dam shown
here (a typical sized dam), held nearly 10 tons
of sediment. Later on in the project, we
unloaded the dams by using an excavator
machine to remove the sediment. Obviously,
this was a much faster process than working
by hand.
The soil removed from the filled dams was
moved to a flat site nearby, where it was
made into a smooth berm, surrounded by
rocks, sprinkled with native seed (we used a
combination of pili grass, ‘āweoweo, ‘uhaloa,
pua kala and ‘ilima), then covered with
biodegradable erosion control fabric (see
photo at the left). After some light rains in the
winter of 2010-11, these seeds began to sprout.
The goal of these berms is to create a
biological barrier to erosion, as well as to
improve the seed bank on the site.
Bare Soil Treatments
In head-cutting gullies and associated bare soil areas in the
drainages, we laid down biodegradable erosion control fabric. The
fabric was shipped from the Mainland, and is made of cotton
threads, which loosely weave together bits of straw. The fabric, called
“Sediment Stop”, comes in 9 foot wide, 50 foot long rolls, and cost
$119 per roll. The gully is first smoothed by hand, then the length of
the fabric is unrolled along the contour, and sprinkled with a native
seed mix (similar to the sequestered soil treatments described above).
It is then rolled up into a tube along its width, and pinned down with
wooden stakes. On steeper slopes, the fabric rolls are closer together.
In total, we covered about 13 acres with fabric.
Page 13
One treatment site along a gully can be seen in the aerial photo below.
The fabric rolls worked well during storm events, holding back sediment like miniature dams. After
the storms, seeds sprouted from within the rolls. On steep slopes where the soil had been disturbed
by a bulldozer, the overland flow swept under rolls, and they had to be re-pinned.
Feral Ungulate Management
One of the critical stressors on this watershed was the presence of feral ungulates (wild relatives of
domesticated hoofed animals), especially feral goats. Feral goats are territorial browsers that can
eliminate woody vegetation within their home range, and compete with domestic livestock for forage
and water. In order to eliminate the impact of these feral animals, an animal-proof perimeter fence
needed to be constructed around the 6600-acre project area, and within that area, feral animal
populations eradicated.
Page 14
Fencing
Our 5-person fence crew constructed 18 miles of fencing to enclose the lower 6600 acres of the
watershed with an ungulate-proof fence. Goats have been known to both climb and dig under fences,
so we needed to pin the fence tightly to the ground as well as have multiple strands of barbed wire
on the top to restrict climbing. Our crew worked full-time on fencing, except for two days each month
when they combined forces with the restoration crew to build or empty sediment dams.
The table below summarizes the fencing materials, their use on this project, and per foot cost.
Material
Details
Cost per Foot
7 ft. steel “T” posts
Pounded by hand; placed maximum 8 feet between posts.
Holes drilled first when placed in rock.
$1.87
48 in. bezinal-coated
woven wire
Stretched tight between posts; bottom edge no more than 2
inches above the ground.
0.91
Short steel posts
Used as “anchors” to pin down wire between posts
0.36
Bezinal-coated barbed
wire
Three strands equally spaced above the woven wire.
0.48
Added as additional “skirting” at bottom of fence when 48
in. wire is more than 2 inches above ground.
0.31
Galvanized steel pipe
and fittings
Used to construct corner posts, braces, and gate posts.
0.31
Stainless steel fence
hardware
Fence clips, smooth wire, etc.
0.24
Welded corral panels
Used at stream crossings & to make gates animal-proof
0.23
Rubber stall mats
Suspended from wire over streams.
0.15
24 in. woven wire
Total Fencing Materials Cost Per Foot
$4.86
Because our fences were built for the dual purposes of containing domestic livestock as well as
excluding feral animals, we innovated some construction procedures that used common materials to
create barriers that allowed for water flow in streams while maintaining an intact animal barrier. The
photos on the next pages illustrate our fencing construction protocols.
Page 15
The photo above left is the upper fence on the restoration corridor, showing the basic specifications
for the fence: 48 inch woven wire topped by three strands of barbed wire. The photo above right
shows a corner, constructed of galvanized pipe with stainless fittings, and concrete footings.
The photos above show the innovative use of rubber stall mats attached below “break-away” welded
corral panels at a stream crossing. In low flow conditions, the rubber mats will allow for the passage
of water. In flood conditions, the panel will break away, to be later mended.
Page 16
The photo on the left shows the implementation of a wire mesh “skirt” to keep animals from digging
under the fence. On the right are the metal tags that have been installed along every section of fence
on one side of the corridor fence as an experimental deterrent for the native Hawaiian hoary bat,
‘ope’ape’a.
Our crew worked at a pace of about a mile of fence constructed per month. The two main factors that
determined the pace of fencing was accessibility (the fence on the lower, north side of the project area
took about 1.5 hours driving each way), and the substrate. Some areas were very rocky, so the crew
had to drill more of the holes for the fence posts, and this slowed down the construction process.
When the ground was soft and the site close by, the pace was very speedy. The overall cost of the
labor (salary and benefits) to build the fence for our crew of five, was approximately $3 per foot.
Feral Goat Control
For the first year of the project, a contractor for Parker Ranch removed about 200 goats through
trapping in the lower watershed. This was facilitated by the drought; goats were drawn to water
troughs, which became the “bait” used to live trap the goats. The goats were removed from the area.
From September 2010 to the end of the
project, our crew leader and two other
staff hunted the goats on a weekly
basis, removing about 230 animals
total. The goats became very shy of
humans (photo shows herd of about
50 animals in the foreground), so only
a few in a herd could be culled at one
time. The carcasses were left in situ.
Page 17
Monitoring
Our monitoring program had two goals: 1) to keep track of our work as we went along to help with
fine-tuning tools and methods, and reporting on our progress, and 2) to establish baseline conditions
to allow us to monitor long-term outcomes of the project.
The first kind of monitoring involved assessing and mapping the work as we progressed. We
regularly tracked our planting areas, fence lines, erosion control areas, and sediment dams with a
GPS, and collected data to relate to those features, including number of plants, survival, buckets of
sediment removed, etc. That data was used to make maps and report progress, including the data in
this final report.
The second type of monitoring was to establish baseline values for those factors for which we
expected to see results over time, including changes in plant cover within the restoration corridor,
amount of bare soil on the watershed, and condition of the marine environment in Pelekane Bay.
Pelekane Bay Marine Study
Part of the supplemental funding from NOAA in early 2010 was designated to fund a baseline marine
survey of Pelekane Bay. The Kohala Center contracted that study with Dr. Marah Hardt, who worked
with researchers from The Nature Conservancy, Scripps Oceanographic Institute, and Cornell
University, and interacted with scientists from the University of Hawaii, and U.S. Geological Survey
The research group compiled fine- and broad-scale data to characterize the bay, especially with
respect to the Makeahua Stream estuary and associated sediment outfall. The final report from this
marine study is attached as Appendix E, and summarized below.
Forty randomly generated sites (18 shallow-water and 22 deep-water sites) in and adjacent to
Pelekane Bay were surveyed in August 2010. Data were collected on (1) water quality and sediments;
(2) the microbial communities; (3) the benthic community including, species composition, abundance
and the size of coral colonies, and prevalence of coral disease; and (4) the fish community including,
species composition, abundance, and size (to estimate biomass). Data on coral health, microbial
communities and water quality were collected at a subset of sites.
Water quality data showed a region within the bay of chronically-elevated surface-water turbidity
that persisted even in calm conditions and is associated with discharge from Makeahua Stream.
Benthic communities within this area of elevated surface water turbidity have different community
composition, elevated levels of disease prevalence, and microbial communities consistent with
sediment-enriched areas. Fish communities within the area of chronically-elevated turbidity had
lower biomass for nearly all fish families, but especially surgeon and parrot fish, compared to areas
outside of it.
Page 18
The composition of the benthic community suggests a community
under significant sediment stress. Sediment-tolerant corals (e.g.,
Porites lobata, seen with a film of sediment and mucus in photo at
right) dominate the communities at survey sites within the area of
chronically elevated turbidity. At survey sites in southern Pelekane
Bay and outside of Pelekane Bay, coral communities have greater
diversity and percent cover of less-sediment tolerant species. Percent
cover of crustose coralline algae was negatively correlated with
surface water turbidity, a result consistent with other research
showing this group to be relatively sediment intolerant.
Coral colony size-frequency distributions for Porites lobata, the most
common coral in Pelekane Bay, are skewed toward larger individuals.
The lack of small coral colonies suggests coral recruitment is failing
and/or reduced coral recruit survival is occurring within Pelekane Bay due to chronic sediment
impairment. In addition to species composition and size structure, coral communities inside Pelekane
Bay also differ markedly from those outside the bay in terms of types and prevalence of coral diseases
compared to adjacent well-flushed reefs. Persistent sedimentation stress is reflected in the prevalence
of chronic diseases such as Porites growth anomalies (POR GA) and microbial communities that
reflect more human-influenced coral reefs.
Because the work we are doing on the watershed is ultimately going to show positive effects for the
coral reef ecosystems in Pelekane Bay, KWP is coordinating with marine researchers to establish longterm monitoring protocols and lines of communication. Late in February 2011, KWP organized a
Pelekane Bay Data “Hui” (the Hawaiian term for a gathering or consortium) at which researchers
working in Pelekane Bay shared their methods and results. These scientists represented 8 university,
marine research & management entities, working on various aspects of coral recruitment and health,
fish population ecology, sediment impacts on biological communities, water quality analysis, and
shark monitoring.
The conclusions of the “hui” included the need for standardized monitoring protocols for Pelekane
Bay that can be repeated over long time periods (5, 10, 20 years) to show changes in the bay due to
watershed rehabilitation, and the recommendation for KWP to act as the “bank” for these data over
the long term. This conclusion addresses the challenge to long-term monitoring for this watershed
project for those involved with the marine research side, where the personnel and funding may be
ephemeral. The “hui” members agreed that the watershed partnership is a land-based coalition that
has invested in long-term management of these resources, and will still be around when the bay
starts to show signs of recovery.
Page 19
Vegetation Surveys
We created 10 randomly located survey plots on the watershed,
and monitored the vegetation using a Modified Whittaker method.
We set up 5 plots inside the exclosure, across the elevation
gradient, paired with 5 outside, within the pasture. From the data
we collected, we can calculate species richness, % cover (bare soil,
grass, etc.), and vegetation stubble height. Each plot gave us those
data on 1, 10, 100 and 1,000 square meter scales.
We surveyed the plots twice in 2010. The data showed a decrease
in overall vegetation cover as the drought progressed. It was
difficult to identify plant species to determine cover classes,
because everything was desiccated (see photo left). We will be remonitoring our vegetation plots again in mid-2011, and expect to
see large differences now that we have had some precipitation,
and plants are regenerating, and outplants are growing.
Assessment of Bare Soil Areas
We used a Geographic Information System (GIS) and satellite imagery to determine the amount of
bare soil in the watershed. The analysis was based on the consensus Landsat image which was
composited from about a dozen satellite images from 2000 to 2010. Those areas consistently classified
(8 of 12 times for instance) as bare soil using the same training points and maximum likelihood
classification were marked “bare”. We then ran this map raster layer of “bare ground” through a
majority filter to remove outliers. This gave approximately 575 acres of land consistently classified as
“bare” in the watershed, scattered in 5 or 6 main areas. We made a “fabric basin” map layer in GIS to show the drainage areas that are now protected by
erosion control fabric. Raster cells (“bare” mapped areas) touching these basins were considered
treated, totaling 77 acres or 13.5% of classified bare soil. None of the treated areas fell on land
classified other than bare. The total bare soil areas are close to the same percentage as classified by
NOAA's CCAP classification, but considerably more than that given by the HI-GAP classification. As
the affects of goat control, rotational grazing, and erosion fabric applications take effect over time,
along with relief from the drought, we expect to see a significant decrease in the amount of land area
classified as “bare”.
Page 20
Outreach Program
We involved our community in our work in a number of ways: presentations to groups, outreach at
community events, field trips, volunteer work days, student field science projects, and Waimea
Nature Camp. Our overall goal is to teach our community about the ecosystem services of a
functioning watershed, the threats to a healthy watershed and relationship to the downstream coral
reefs, and provide opportunities for them to participate in caring for the environment.
Volunteer Program
Twice monthly on Saturdays, we invited the community to join us in working on the watershed. We
did a variety of work on these outings, from killing weeds and upgrading trails in the Koai’a Tree
Sanctuary, to planting native species in restoration areas, and invasive species control in management
units within the forest. Our volunteer work involved more than 300 individuals, including students,
families and retirees. The photo below right is the volunteer group from a typical planting day in
January 2011, and the left is two volunteers during our Earth Day 2010 event. In addition to
coordinating and supervising the activities, KWP staff provided transportation to the site, snacks and
water, and all needed tools, gloves and supplies.
As a result of these volunteer days, during the course of the project, we installed more than 2000
native plants, controlled weeds in three separate management areas, and created a 0.75 mile loop
hiking trail within the Koai’a Tree Sanctuary. Our repeat volunteers were recognized by receiving
KWP T-shirts and caps, as well as a photo guide book to the plants of Kohala Mountain. Our
volunteer program allowed community members to become invested in the work that we do, as well
as improve their knowledge of Hawaiian ecosystems and the threats to the conservation of the forest.
One of our steady volunteers told us, “I volunteer because I love Kohala! So many people drive by on the
Kohala Mountain Road but never go above it and into the forest. I feel very lucky to have seen and experienced
more of Kohala mountain through volunteering with KWP. Working with others to restore and protect the
Kohala Watershed is a very rewarding experience, and I'm grateful to learn more each time I volunteer.”
Page 21
Community Outreach & Presentations
The KWP coordinator and outreach assistant gave at least one
presentation each to the Kawaihae Community Resource
Council, Waimea Community Association, and North Hawai’i
Rotary; set up an information booth at Kohala Country Fair (see
photo below), the HOEA Fair in Waimea, Honokaʻa Peace
Parade; presented to the Hawaii Island caucus at the Legislature
in Honolulu; gave a scientific talk at the Nahelehele Dry Forest
Symposium (both 2010 and 2011), the Pelekane Bay data hui and
the Hawai’i Association of Watershed Partnerships Mauka to Makai symposium on Maui; led field
excursions for local elected officials, the Waimea Outdoor Circle, local Boy Scout troops, the
Nahelehele symposium, as well as the Hawai‘i Nei Art Competition participants. We also gave
presentations or took field trips with classes (see photo below of field trip with water quality testing)
from Waimea Middle School, Parker School, Kanu O Ka ʻĀina Public Charter School, Hawaii
Preparatory Academy, Pa’auilo School, and Waikoloa Middle School, reaching more than 175
students (and their parents and teachers) in the North Hawai’i area with basic watershed education.
Media coverage included numerous articles in print and electronic
forms generated from media releases about the ongoing work of KWP
as well as monthly notices in online community calendars about the
volunteer program. We distributed about a thousand copies of our
Pelekane Bay watershed restoration project brochures (attached as
Appendix F).
We used a simple assessment tool at our community presentations
(Appendix G), which not only prepared the groups for what we hoped
to share with them, but also demonstrated an increase in knowledge of
our audience about the work we do. They left with a better
understanding of the goals and outcomes of the work of KWP, as well
as the conditions of Pelekane Bay, and the causes of its degradation.
Transportation
We purchased four used 4X4 vehicles for this project, ranging in cost from $15,000 to $23,000, all from
private individuals. Three were crew cab pick-ups, the other was an SUV. We purchased heavy-duty
tires for all of them, which needed to be replaced each year due to the extreme wear from off-road
use. All of the vehicles were diesel, and the total monthly average cost for fuel, supplies and
maintenance for the project was $2,200. We also purchased two used trailers ($12,000 and $4,000), a
used water trailer ($3,000), and used ATV ($4,000).
Page 22
Ongoing and Future Work
The Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration Project is an endeavor to accomplish large-scale ecosystem
rehabilitation, and requires commitment over the long term. The NOAA investment in the Pelekane
Bay watershed to date has involved short-term, large-scale installation of infrastructure that will
allow for long-term restoration. However, the eventual success of what we have put in place requires
a commitment to maintenance of the fencing, irrigation system, and outplantings for many years,
especially in the face of the drought of the century. We have about 32,000 new outplantings in the
ground that are all still on irrigation. The drought is predicted to continue, there is little rain in sight,
and without water, most of those plants will die. If we do get another major storm event like those in
the fall and winter of 2010-11, we need staff to empty the dams and stabilize the sediment, or we will
be back to where we started. The same situation is true with respect to the goat fence. If the fence is
not maintained and repaired, the goats will find a way to get through, and then all our work to
restore woody vegetation will be reversed within a few months as goats re-establish on the
watershed.
The KWP partners have made the commitment to continue this work, and have sought additional
grants to extend the outcomes that were achieved with the NOAA-ARRA funding. We are the
recipients of a $80,000 grant for watershed restoration from NOAA through a Community-based
Restoration Grant in cooperation with the Hawai’i Community Foundation that will help us to not
only maintain the fences, sediment dams, erosion fabric, plantings and irrigation already in place, but
will also supplement the work with additional dams, bare soil treatments, and 5,000 native outplants.
Page 23
Appendix A
Field Crew Self-Assessment Form
Page 24
Appendix B
KWP Leadership Rubric and Assessment Form
Page 25
Appendix C
Photos and Information on “Core” Native Plants used in Restoration
Page 26
Appendix D
Map of Pods and Irrigation
Page 27
Appendix E
Pelekane Bay Marine Study
Page 28
Appendix F
Pelekane Bay Watershed Restoration Project Brochure
Page 29
Appendix G
Community Presentation Survey
Page 30